August 27, 2024, Oral Argument
State Secretary of State vs Wendland
Las Vegas – 02:00 p.m. – Court of Appeals
Smith vs Paustian
Las Vegas – 02:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
State Secretary of State vs Wendland
Docket No. 85360-COA
Las Vegas – 02:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
The Secretary of State terminated the employment of its Help America Vote Act Administrator, Justus Wendland. When Wendland appealed his termination to a hearing officer, he failed to attach a copy of the written notification of discipline as required by NAC 284.6562. Although the Secretary of State moved to dismiss Wendland’s appeal for noncompliance with the rule, the hearing officer denied the motion after finding that Wendland had substantially complied. The hearing officer subsequently overturned Wendland’s termination, finding that the Secretary of State had violated Wendland’s procedural due process rights both during its investigation and by including general allegations of misconduct in the specificity of charges.
The Secretary of State filed a petition for judicial review which was denied by the district court. On appeal from that decision, the Secretary of State raises the following issues: (1) whether the hearing officer erred by failing to dismiss Wendland’s administrative appeal for noncompliance with NAC 284.6562; (2) whether the hearing officer erred in finding that Wendland was denied procedural due process both during the investigation and in the specificity of charges; and (3) whether the hearing officer abused her discretion by failing to consider all of the grounds for termination set forth in the specificity of charges.
Smith vs Paustian
Docket No. 86961-COA
Las Vegas – 02:30 p.m. – Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a judgment on a jury verdict. Appellant Heather Smith filed suit against respondent Robert Ray Paustian for negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident. In her complaint, Smith also raised allegations involving conscious disregard for her safety as Paustian was driving without ever obtaining a driver’s license, nor did he receive any formal driver’s training. Following trial, the jury awarded Smith limited compensatory damages, but was not permitted to consider Smith’s request for punitive damages. Smith presents three issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in denying her request to produce Paustian, who was incarcerated at the time of trial, to testify at trial or by alternative means such as video conferencing or a second deposition for use at trial; (2) whether the district court erred in excluding Paustian’s prior inconsistent statement; and (3) whether the district court erred in granting Paustian judgment as a matter of law as to Smith’s punitive damages request.